Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 1240/2019

Case between Prasanna Rajendran vs Rajendra Babu P regarding recovery of money

Court
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2024-10-05
Duration
approximately-6 years 4 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Prasanna Rajendran filed a suit against Rajendra Babu P for the recovery of ₹8,75,000, alleging that the defendant borrowed money and issued a cheque that was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The defendant denied any borrowing and claimed the cheque was misused.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court found that the plaintiff did not establish her case for recovery of money against the defendant. The suit was dismissed, and both parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to prove the case and inconsistencies in evidence raised doubts about the loan being made.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Prasanna Rajendran (58 years) KT Apartments, Tagore Nagar, Kadavanthra, Kochi 682 020, Elamkulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District K. Rajendran (66 years) KT Apartments, Tagore Nagar, Kadavanthra, Kochi 682 020, Elamkulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District

Defendants

Rajendra Babu P (55 years) Lakshmi Vilasam, Uzhava, Kalavamkodam P.O, Vayalar, Cherthala 688 536, Vayalar East Village, Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha District

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The plaintiff sought recovery of ₹8,75,000 with interest.
Evidence:
I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing her case and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in her favour.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document authorizes the husband of the plaintiff to depose in favour of the plaintiff in the case.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Cheque
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This is the cheque allegedly issued by the defendant to the plaintiff for repayment.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Cheque Return Memo
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This memo indicates that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Legal Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice was sent to the defendant informing about the dishonour of the cheque.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This is the receipt for the issuance of the lawyer notice to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A4(a)

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Sat, 10/05/2019 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases